Some years ago, the evolutionist and atheist Richard Dawkins pointed out to me that Sir Isaac Newton, the founder of modern physics and mathematics, and arguably the greatest scientist of all time, was born on Christmas Day, and that therefore Newtons Birthday could be an alternative, if somewhat nerdy, excuse for a winter holiday.

Think of the merchandise! Newton is said to have discovered the phenomenon of gravity by watching apples fall in an orchard. (His insight came after pondering why they always fall down, rather than upwards or sideways.) Newtons Birthday cards could feature the great man discovering gravity by watching a Christmas decoration fall from a tree. (This is a little anachronistic  Christmas trees didnt come to England until later  but I dont think we should let that get in the way.)

All very jolly  but then, tis the season. Yet things are not so simple. It turns out that the date of Newtons birthday is a little contentious. Newton was born in England on Christmas Day 1642 according to the Julian calendar  the calendar in use in England at the time. But by the 1640s, much of the rest of Europe was using the Gregorian calendar (the one in general use today); according to this calendar, Newton was born on Jan. 4, 1643.

Rather than bickering about whether Dec. 25 or Jan. 4 is the better date to observe Newtons Birthday, I think we should embrace the discrepancy and have an extended festival. After all, the festival of Christmas properly continues for a further 12 days, until the feast of the Epiphany on Jan. 6. So the festival of Newton could begin on Christmas Day and then continue for an extra 10 days, representing the interval between the calendars.

If I recall correctly, he wrote more on alchemy than he did mathematics and physics. What a waste.

Newton discovered the binomial theorem, calculus, the laws of motion, universal gravitation, and the decomposition of light. Any of these discoveries would have made him famous forever. But instead we got all of this from just one man. And all of this before he reached the age of 40.

After this he left teaching at Cambridge and moved to London to become head of the Royal Mint. Perhaps that is why he started his study of alchemy. Alchemy was state of the art at that time. Newton was trying to turn lead into gold. Of course we know today that it is theoretically possible to change lead into gold by changing the number of protons in the nucleus of an atom, but the process would be prohibitively expensive. It is much cheaper to dig gold out of the ground.

Mathematics and classical physics got so much from this one man. Must we demand that he invent modern chemistry as well?

Newton has my vote for the greatest scientific genius in history. I recently saw a poll in which Newton received the most votes of modern scientists for that honor. However, I think Dawkin's proposal to substitute Newton's birthday for Christmas is very silly. But then atheists do often say very silly things.

"Yes, but weve got plenty of scientists today who have never devoted themselves to real science.

Well, there aren't too many people devoting themselves to alchemy these days. Other pseudosciences such as astrology and UFO studies are flourishing, but I wouldn't call people who study such things "scientists"!

Mathematics and classical physics got so much from this one man. Must we demand that he invent modern chemistry as well?

Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not trying to diminish his accomplishments in the slightest. I was just speculating that had he not drifted off into studies of theology and the occult he may well have produced even more substantive work. As it is, I quite agree that he's the greatest scientist of all time.

Newton is said to have discovered the phenomenon of gravity by watching apples fall in an orchard. Keen observation. I wonder what ancient Egyptians attributed the physical properties of the “plumb bob” to?

OK, just image what discoveries you and I would have made and given to science if we developed our minds to the same extent as Newton. If only we had devoted our lives to "true science". We would both be geniuses.

That is a very nice fantasy. But unfortunately I never developed my mind to the same extend as Newton. Nor have I ever make any contributions to science. What a shame.

GL of Sector 2814 wrote: Well, there aren't too many people devoting themselves to alchemy these days. Other pseudosciences such as astrology and UFO studies are flourishing, but I wouldn't call people who study such things "scientists"!

The pseudoscience of choice for "scientists" these days is "Anthropogenic Global Climate Change." It is quite popular. And about as scientific as UFO studies, astrology and alchemy.

OK, just image what discoveries you and I would have made and given to science if we developed our minds to the same extent as Newton.

Since I'm confident that I'm not as smart as Newton, any discoveries I would have made would most likely have been much more minor in nature. I can't speak for you, not knowing you sufficiently.

If only we had devoted our lives to "true science".

I'm curious, why would you put that in quotes?

We would both be geniuses.

Only if we were geniuses to begin with.

That is a very nice fantasy. But unfortunately I never developed my mind to the same extend as Newton. Nor have I ever make any contributions to science. What a shame.

How about you?

I have one real regret about my life; while I majored in physics in college, I never completed my degree. This was entirely my fault (lack of discipline). Had I completed my studies, I might well have become a scientist.

I put that in quotes because people don't talk about "true science". They talk about science. Is Einstein's theory of relativity true? No, physicists know it is not true. It contradicts quantum mechanics. So the search is on for a better theory. Are theories ever proven in science? No. All you can do is collect data that supports a theory or contradicts the theory.

When you took a physics lab in college, did you ever state in your lab reports that you proved a theory? No, all you could do is test a theory by collecting data. You took several measurements with some degree of error and arrived at an average with some degree of error. Then you used a discrepancy test with some figure of error to compare the experimental results you obtained with the theoretical predictions. If the two calculations came within some tolerance with stated figure of error, then you could state the the experimental date supported the theory, but you never stated that the experimental results proved the theory. Inductive reasoning is never a proof. So it seemed odd to me that you wrote about "true science".

Only if we were geniuses to begin with.

Exactly. I was waiting patiently for you to say that. Geniuses are born geniuses. How do you explain that with science?

I put that in quotes because people don't talk about "true science". They talk about science. Is Einstein's theory of relativity true? No, physicists know it is not true. It contradicts quantum mechanics. So the search is on for a better theory. Are theories ever proven in science? No. All you can do is collect data that supports a theory or contradicts the theory.

When you took a physics lab in college, did you ever state in your lab reports that you proved a theory? No, all you could do is test a theory by collecting data. You took several measurements with some degree of error and arrived at an average with some degree of error. Then you used a discrepancy test with some figure of error to compare the experimental results you obtained with the theoretical predictions. If the two calculations came within some tolerance with stated figure of error, then you could state the the experimental date supported the theory, but you never stated that the experimental results proved the theory. Inductive reasoning is never a proof. So it seemed odd to me that you wrote about "true science".

Please re-read the thread. You used the phrase "true science" first...not me.

What I did say was this: "Just imagine if he'd devoted his later life to real science, though." I'll stand by that. Newton spent his latter years writing 650,000 words on alchemy. Chemistry has its roots in alchemy, just as astronomy has its roots in astrology. But astrology isn't real science, and neither is alchemy. They are both pseudosciences.

Do you disagree?

Geniuses are born geniuses. How do you explain that with science

The same way I would explain how some people are born with the ability to run more quickly or lift heavy weights...genetics (and training). What other explanation would there possibly be?

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.